On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 02:26:05PM +0200, Pierre Morel wrote: > > On 4/4/23 09:03, Cédric Le Goater wrote: > > On 4/3/23 18:28, Pierre Morel wrote: > > > diff --git a/include/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.h > > > b/include/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.h > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 0000000000..83f31604cc > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/include/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.h > > > @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ > > > +/* > > > + * CPU Topology > > > + * > > > + * Copyright IBM Corp. 2022 > > > > Shouldn't we have some range : 2022-2023 ? > > There was a discussion on this in the first spins, I think to remember that > Nina wanted 22 and Thomas 23, > > now we have a third opinion :) . > > I must say that all three have their reasons and I take what the majority > wants. > > A vote? Whether or not to include a single year, or range of years in the copyright statement is ultimately a policy decision for the copyright holder to take (IBM in this case I presume), and not subject to community vote/preferences. I will note that some (possibly even many) organizations consider the year to be largely redundant and devoid of legal benefit, so are happy with basically any usage of dates (first year, most recent year, a range of years, or none at all). With this in mind, QEMU is willing to accept any usage wrt dates in the copyright statement. It is possible that IBM have a specific policy their employees are expected to follow. If so, follow that. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
